Always Wondering
Ross G Caldwell said:
So only Class A works are open to Qabalistic analysis? I've never really read much about the classes of material. Is there a guide or something?
AW
Liber Theta
So only Class A works are open to Qabalistic analysis? I've never really read much about the classes of material. Is there a guide or something?
AW
Ross G Caldwell
Always Wondering said:
Sorry, that was poorly phrased. Of course anything at all is open to Qabalistic analysis. For a Thelemic instance, look at the "Interlude" in Magick in Theory and Practice. If you're steeped in the stuff, you can interpret anything through that lens.
What I meant to say was that if inspired in the Class A sense, we might expect the text to contain, conceal, reveal, etc., the same kind of word, gematria, and mathematical relationships that the other Class A books do. This is in contrast to the inner dynamic Qabalism of the "Interlude" and every adept's practice of seeing everything at all Qabalistically, from a stubbed toe to a Spoonerism to a shooting star on Wednesday night at 10:15 pm. These depend on the level of the adept's "qabalization", rather than on the intent of the source or cause of the event, like in the case of the Class A texts.
brightcrazystar
Here are the general classes of publication, AW:
A. Text which represent the Adept. They are considered the "Holy" books.
B. Essays, usually on pre-existing topics, redacting them for The New Aeon
C. Opinion, and suggestions. Crowley as scholar writing to other scholar.
D. Official Rituals and Instructions
E. Manifestos, Public Statements. Writings addressed to humanity at large.
Many people argue as the Book of the Law requires a comment,per its own instructions, that the comment is part of the book. It is otherwise not a seperate publications and that would make it a Class E and Class D, or perhaps just a Class E. There is case of writings being in more than one class.
A. Text which represent the Adept. They are considered the "Holy" books.
B. Essays, usually on pre-existing topics, redacting them for The New Aeon
C. Opinion, and suggestions. Crowley as scholar writing to other scholar.
D. Official Rituals and Instructions
E. Manifestos, Public Statements. Writings addressed to humanity at large.
Many people argue as the Book of the Law requires a comment,per its own instructions, that the comment is part of the book. It is otherwise not a seperate publications and that would make it a Class E and Class D, or perhaps just a Class E. There is case of writings being in more than one class.
Aeon418
We know no such thing! After the dictation and sometime before he left Egypt, Crowley prepared a typescript and two carbons from the original manuscript. Now irrespective of any memory loss that Crowley may have suffered over the years, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that his memory failed in the space of a few days and prevented him bashing out a copy on a typewriter.brightcrazystar said:
As we all know Crowley eventually misplaced the original manuscript, but he never lost the Book of the Law. He always had a copy of the typescript to work from. (At one point he was even considering publishing it as part of his Collected Works.) So to suggest that Crowley's recollection of the Tzaddi symbol rests on the discovery of the manuscript five years later is a bit of a weak argument.
Crowley was still in his experimental period then. His diaries from that time show that he was using the old and new attributions on an either/or basis. He didn't have full confidence in the new attributions until the 1930's.brightcrazystar said:
As for the commentary, it must be pointed out that he received the vision in question in 1909. A time when his symbol set was still true to the Golden Dawn scheme. In places this is reflected in the vision. (Note how he refers to Heh as the perfected Sulphur.) In 1924 he was still experimenting with the attributions, so he went along with what he knew best at the time.
brightcrazystar
Aeon418 said:
He also first prepared for the publication of the Book of the Law in 1907. A time when also was first known to proclaim himself in touch with the Third Order. Despite what he says later, he showed it to Elaine Simpson (Soror Fidelis) and he was bid in a scrying session to go back to Egypt, which he did not do.
People say this 1909 timeline like it is gospel, even though he was already writing the Majority of the Holy Books, including the account of a Master of the Temple before this time. Many of these are where we see the emerging authority. Crowley's admissions and his diaries are full of contradictions, and that is where the greatest support for this comes.
It seems to me that a person claiming Mastery of the Temple, and such authority as Magick in Theory and Practice would have had some great idea of his importance enough to have solidified his use of the Hebrew Letters, if they were to be the fundamental key of the magick of the West he hoped Qabala to be.
The symbol is overwritten, and likely with a different implement. It surely looks like a deliberation on the glyph to me. Most of the contents of the book of the law, contrary to thoughts on the matter, DID NOT etch themselves onto the memory of Aleister Crowley at the time of dictation.
Crowley's LIFE was one experimental period after another. No one is required to accept each of them. He expressed eaily as much doubt as he did determination on many a subject. There is a lot of Book of Thoth one can be skeptical of, and still find value in the rest.
Who is so sure this is true? I heard Eshelman claim this, but found little evidence of it besides Soror Meral's insisting. I respectfully remain skeptical it was this simple.
In 1909, he was already claiming Master of the Temple, had already started A.'.A.'., and was already taken to claiming superior authority among all Adepts. He started this in 1907, and expects people to imagine he had not yet considered the importance of the book of the law, though it had been instrumental to so many of his 1907 and 1908 work. hmm?
The exact criteria is not met by a counter-change he proposes. This would mean TWO letters are not aright. The exact phrasing, is ALL of these letters of "my old book" (presumed to be Tarot) are "aright" - ALL of them. it continues - "but [a mark on the page] is not the Star." What can be far more telling is the following possibilities are in no way the only ones to consider:
The symbol could be a Beth, proto-hebrew - and a correction on Crowely's specific understanding of the Star - thus the eight pointed on the Star is in fact, Venus, at the topmost point of the 28th path between Netzach and Yesod. Crowley spoke of it as Mercury long before. And it could be saying [proto-hebrew Beth and Masoretic Beth overwritten] is not the Star. Crowley has NO knowledge of proto-Hebrew, so he could not know such a thing; while Aiwass might very well. This understanding makes for a great interpretation of the text, but remains a personal conjecture, not an insistence. As "Star" is "Kokabh", the name of the Sphere of Mercury in the Hebrew, this is even a greater notion of reason.
The symbol could be the single worst Tzaddi I have ever seen instance of in my life, but I do not see why in his first Magical prime Crowley, who left other instances of Hebrew would make it look so horrible. Furthermore, the switch to Masoretic hebrew is uncharacteristic of the book. Furthermore, the verse does not mention any changing of the Zodiacal attributions, or placement on the Tree of Life. Even if it is a Tzaddi, all it speaks to is the inaccurate title of the Star. If this was the intent, it was poorly implemented. Also, Crowley's claim for a loop made to counteract Leo and Libra are not accurate. The Symbol has nothing to do with Tarot, and may be some other sense. In this case one should even wonder if it is Hebrew at all.
Mul La-Gula is the "Great One" - the ultimate origin of Aquarius. Retitling Key XVII by the name "The Great One" is perhaps enough to recorrect the change. This constellation is also called the "Kidney Star" and was connected to observations of the planet Venus, and Inanna as enthorned bride of Ea. Later emerging as a syncretic form Mul-La-Gula is later seen as a masculine being, but originally was female. Lahmu was the being incorporated as the component to make the masculine form, though he is often shown with his enthroned female consort.
This is an elegant solution, and speak to scholarship not available in Crowley's time... which simply requires a retitling of a card, and a clarification that would change the number of the stars in the sky on the card, from Eight to Seven, or the number of points, the number of stars, or both. At this rate, there become more than a few different options.
Something was written and Crowley tried to make sense of it in retrospect, and made a riddle where there was none. It is confounded by his own overwriting of the mark, and some brains (even his own) see it as one symbol.
The underlying symbol could be a 90 degree rotated Heh, and masoretically marked as Final. Again poorly illustrated, but this has more than a few times mentioned.
The exact nature of that verse was deliberately withheld by Crowley, or lost as a few parts of the book were in the first chapter. This is part of it major complication.
RLG
Dwtw
A solution to AL I:57 that requires changing only one Hebrew letter, not two:
All these old letters of my Book are aright, but Tzaddi is not the Star...Tzaddi final is.
Litlluw
RLG
A solution to AL I:57 that requires changing only one Hebrew letter, not two:
All these old letters of my Book are aright, but Tzaddi is not the Star...Tzaddi final is.
Litlluw
RLG
brightcrazystar
RLG said:
Good one!
- Crowley, on the Emperor in Book of Thoth, as befits the path between Chockmah and Tiphareth.
Though I still wonder if the Book of Thoth, was published to his liking as it was published 2 years and nine months before the end of his life, when he was already terribly suffering and shortly before he would have a constant nurse. As it was, the terrible pressure of knowing this would likely be his last publication was extreme, so the likelyhood for error was great, but the quote above could be no error, if it is displayed on the card, and so succinctly describes a specific position on the Tree. I see the book, and feel the optimism wrapped in it, and the idea that he is still looking for validation of Magick as much as himself in a world that owes his several degress of gratitude, even for all his mucking up a few things of relatively low consequence.
Unfortunately, though, one of those things loosed of integrity is his own credibility and for that he remains a subject of scrutiny and conjecture - which humanizes him, and makes me admire him more. To think he dared where Gods fear to tread, knowing how great he portent for failure... That is a life dedicated the powers of the Sphinx! I think there is a good chance he was not supposed to succeed entirely as he hoped, or even claimed. I refuse to be dogmatic about a single word of Crowley's. In all things, consider.
Otherwise, why would the notions of failure be so great in the Book of the Law. As most Initiates know, the penalties and the threats are also the rewards in their own way. This is why you can tell a real Magician is giving a sign, he does so with the weight of his experience of the Grade, not simply a textbook knowledge of some trivia about mythology. A person must purify their will before they bid it be done, or it can be actually very non-life affirming and self- destructive. How much then for a Magician who could scarcely speak a daily obeisance for a month without begging the universe for a distraction? He was a prototype in need of future models by his own admission. He also was adamant there were things he had concealed, mistaken, and simply not thought to do. That is the point our work begins.
Richard
Clever.RLG said:
Or one could just leave out Tzaddi and use Heh for both the Star and the Emperor, just as there are two occurrences of Heh in the Tetragrammaton, each with a different significance. Anyhow, Tzaddi spelled out is 104, which by Pythagorean numerology reduces to Heh = 5.Aeon418
Whether we regard the "prophet" as Crowley or another person, it is clear that this person shall know the answer to the riddle and will reveal it.
I don't regard myself as this prophet, so I just work with the transposition that Crowley proposed. But some people are convinced that Crowley's solution is wrong. OK, fair enough. Then they go one step further and provide their own solutions.
So my question is: which one of you guys is the prophet?
brightcrazystar
I am, save that I understand a little
